My thoughts and Opinions:
1. The 'experts' are acting on behalf of Nominet effectively as 'sub-contractors'.
2. Liability ultimately lies with Nominet - obvious really when you think about it.
3. Follow Nominets Complaints Proceedure detailing the important 'issues', including asking for the domain not to be transfered at this time - details on how to do this can be found here:
Complaints
4. If this doesn't resolve the issues apply to the court (as I previously mentioned), as long as you can proove the decision was based on false evidence or or/and incorrect assumptions by the 'expert', and/or any breach of contract by Nominet.
Remember: This is my thoughts and opinions and does not constitute legal advice.
Regards,
Sneezy.
Sneezy thanks for this but does this still apply as the owner has already made a complaint against the expert and Nominet are really saying the liability is with the expert hence the received really non-commital response.
" ...I cannot intervene in this case. In reaching this position I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the merits of the actual decision."
I wont publish the rest of the reply as I have told admin I wouldn't but if I was reading it right the owner was being told that while the Nominet solicitor wouldnt step in, he wouldnt say whether he agreed or disagreed with the decision - but he did mention the owner had to prove that there had been any procedural irregularity.
So would the owner get this extra 10 days they talk about in this complaints link as he could really use the extra time to get his case sorted out. My thoughts on this and part of my appeal or court documents should be:
*****************************
Dear Mr XXXXXXXXX,
My question has got to be; After anyone reads this pdf document if this decision IS NOT a case where
clear procedural irregularity exists, THEN WHAT IS?
* Nominet states that ANYONE who raises such a complaint or case against a domain owner must absolutely PROVE their case - THEY (FREMANTLE) HAVE NOT!.
* Fremantle have lied to discredit the owner and used this as a tool to lodge a "exceptional circumstances/evidence" clause so that the "Expert" would have to read more supposed NEW evidence. This was also proven by the actual Editor of The Times newspaper to be a LIE.
So why at this stage when this was so evident were they not found GUILTY of making a claim in "BAD FAITH" and the decision made in the owners favour??.
* Additionally the "Expert has found on the basis that an 'imaginary income' has been made, when she had as part of the owners submissions (had a signed statement explaining the banner marketing campaign was there as an example of how the new owners could structure such a campaign to earn additional revenue, and that it was not operational) if she would have tried to actually complete the process she relies on for her decision she would have found out it could not be done. This is incompetent if not verging on negligence on the experts part.
This finding if allowed to go no makes a complete mockery of Nominet and the way the public at large and independent Nominet members actually feel about an in-house procedure that cannot remain neutral.
Moreover; their have been several occasions when Fremantle have been given more time than is allowed and it would appear their has been an unfair biase throughout this entire process for a coporate business to the detriment of the original owner of the name.
Nominet SHOULD intervene to put a stop, total stop on this kind of decision
making when it is so evidently WRONG!!
*********************
Just my thoughts if anyone can provide any feedback, I would be really grateful. Plus anyone know how to kick off a court claim??.